July 14. 1906.I 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
55 
in the forest reserves of California—are on the 
House calendar. The two Senate bills—S. 2966 
and S. 6119—still in Committee, are practically 
identical with H. R. 7019 and H. R. 19.234- The 
other two bills—IT. R. 11,789 and H. R. 15.849— 
have not been reported. T. S. Palmer. 
Taxidermist’s Specimens. 
Unusual activity has been shown of late by the 
officials of the Forest, Fish and Game Com¬ 
mission for alleged violations of the game laws. 
Mr. Fred Sauter, one of the leading taxiderm¬ 
ists in New York city, who has been established 
in business for nearly fifty years, is highly in¬ 
censed against what he calls the unwarranted 
and ridiculous crusade now being waged against 
taxidermists in New York city. To a Forest 
and Stream reporter Mr. Sauter said: 
“It seems odd, to say the least, that the offi¬ 
cials of the Forest, Fish and Game Commission 
should suddenly direct their attacks against 
taxidermists for the alleged violation of statutes 
enacted about six years ago, and as to the 
proper interpretation of which skilled lawyers 
are now in a wrangle with the courts in be¬ 
half not only of taxidermists, but wholesale 
milliners and hotel men. 
The section of the law involved is Sec. 33, 
which makes it a misdemeanor and punishable 
by a fine of $60 and an additional penalty of 
$25 for each part of the plumage, skin or body 
of any protected bird (other than game birds 
for which an open season is provided, and 
English sparrows, crows, hawks, crow black¬ 
birds, snow owls, and great-horned owls), which 
are sold or held in possession for sale. 
“When a law,” continued Mr. Sauter, “has 
for so long lain dormant, it’s an outrage that 
its sudden enforcement should work us such 
hardship and financial loss. I’m sure that the 
framers of the law never intended that it should 
be wielded against taxidermists, but against 
the wanton slaughter of birds for market pur¬ 
poses. 
“At present, taxidermists are all up a tree, so 
to speak, as to what we may or may not do, as 
far as the bird part of our business is con¬ 
cerned. Just now we scarcely know which way 
to turn, and I have already written to Com¬ 
missioner Whipple, asking him to have one of 
his game protectors visit me and give me full 
instructions, as he suggested. We all want to 
obey the law, but scarcely know how to live up 
to it. 
“For instance, I would like to know whether 
I, as a taxidermist, can lawfully have game birds 
or part of their plumage or body in my pos¬ 
session during the closed season in this State, 
and whether it is lawful for me to offer the 
same for sale. Also what I am to do with birds 
that came into my possession before the pres¬ 
ent law went into effect. 
“It seems ridiculous to me that a man who 
lawfully shoots a game bird in some other State 
during the open season there cannot send it on 
to a taxidermist in New York city and have it 
mounted should it happen to be the closed sea¬ 
son here for that particular kind of game. 
“Then again, the injustice and absurdity of 
the law are illustrated by the fact that should a 
person shoot a game bird during the lawful sea¬ 
son in this State and send it to me to be 
mounted, and should the bird be discovered in 
my possession after the open season here closes, 
I am liable to be arrested and compelled to pay 
a heavy fine. 
“As a matter of fact, taxidermists have com¬ 
paratively few game birds on sale, and in nearly 
every case these are birds that have been left 
to be mounted, and have failed to be called for 
by the persons who brought them. In the name 
of justice, common sense and fair play, where 
does our protection come in? We have only 
received a small sum in advance for our work, 
the customer fails to turn up, and then should 
the bird be found in our possession or offered 
by us for sale, we are pounced upon as a 
malefactor by the agents of the Commission. 
“Rarely, indeed, do we buy a bird; and we 
would starve to death if we had to live on the 
profits from the sale of them. It is well known 
and acknowledged by the officers of the Au¬ 
dubon Society that we don’t do a bit of work 
for milliners. Over nine-tenths of our work is 
done for schools, collectors and for scientific 
purposes. The Commission issues permits to 
men to kill wild birds for scientific purposes, 
yet if they bring their specimens to me, 1 must 
refuse to take them, for the law which protects 
them does not protect me. 
“Collectors and others, who formerly had 
most of their work done by New York city tax¬ 
idermists, are now sending their specimens to 
New Jersey, and to taxidermists up the State, 
who have not been interfered with as yet by 
the officials. Lots of collectors have come to 
me of late, but I have had to refuse their work. 
“Not long ago a man brought me a woodcock 
which he had found lying stunned in City Hall 
Park. I could not take it, and the man let it 
loose in the park again, where it was soon 
stoned to death by small boys. Although num¬ 
berless birds meet death by accident, as thou¬ 
sands are killed every year during the migratory 
season by dashing their lives out against the 
Statue of Liberty, and against lighthouses every¬ 
where, I can’t even receive such birds in my 
shop, even though proof were presented of the 
manner of their death. 
“As I said before, the present law was not 
intended to interfere with the business of taxi¬ 
dermists, but was aimed to put an end to the 
ruthless destroying of birds for millinery and 
market purposes. Down in Florida thousands 
upon thousands of white herons are killed every 
year for their aigrettes. Within a radius of 
twenty miles from City Hall Park more wild 
birds are killed every Saturday and Sunday for 
pot-pie purposes than the taxidermists in the 
State handle in a year. Why don’t the game 
protectors get after these wholesale destroyers 
of bird life? 
“As matters now stand, we are all at sea, and 
as a result we shall ask for an amendment to the 
present law calling for taxidermists to be 
licensed, as they are in Maine; and in this con¬ 
nection we shall doubtless petition the Forest, 
Fish and Game Commission and the Audubon 
Society to see if we can’t secure some kind of 
arrangement whereby we can continue to do 
business.” 
Thomas Rowland, a well-known New York 
city taxidermist against whom a verdict was 
recently obtained for having in his possession 
wild birds for which there is no open season, 
declared to the Forest and Stream reporter 
that he intended to appeal the case, as he deems 
that he has been dealt with most unjustly. The 
birds mentioned in the complaint were a blue- 
jay, a loon, a starling, a sea gull, a bald eagle 
and a golden eagle. The case was tried before 
Judge O'Gorman in the Supreme Court, and 
was deemed of special interest, as it was the 
first of a series begun against taxidermists. 
The allegation was that not only had Mr. Row¬ 
land the plumage of birds, but the birds them¬ 
selves. The court held that even if the birds 
had been merely left with the taxidermist for 
mounting, he was in unlawful possession. The 
judgment, including costs, has not yet been 
entered, but it is expected to amount to $312. 
In commenting on the case, Mr. Rowland 
warmly declared that he believed his arrest an 
outrage. “It was due to the fact,” said he, “that 
there was discovered in my shop a small part of 
a loon and a bit of a gull, the head of an eagle 
and three perfect birds. The eagle’s head had 
been sent to be mounted from Wyoming, where 
the bird had been killed in a bear trap. 
“If these bits of plumage were found in the 
possession of some big wholesale milliner, would 
the owner have been arrested? Of course not. 
The wholesale milliners along Broadway have 
thousands of aigrettes for sale this very minute. 
Why are they unmolested? Is it because they 
are so powerful and that we are so weak? 
Should a collector send a single aigrette to me 
to work upon, and the plumage be found in my 
possession, I am liable to be haled before the bar 
of justice.. Thousands and thousands of women 
are to be seen every day wearing hats adorned 
with eagle and pelican feathers, aigrettes and 
gulls’ wings, yet no one molests their owners, 
and no one molests the milliners who sell them. 
“A collector may go to Cuba or Florida, or 
some other far-away place, and lawfully shoot 
a bird and send it to me to be mounted. Should 
it chance to reach me during, the closed season 
here for that particular kind of bird, I would 
be compelled, for my own protection, to throw 
the specimen away. We can’t even supply 
schools now with specimens, and little or no work 
can be done for collectors. And, by the way, 
if we are liable to arrest for having certain 
birds in our possession at certain times and 
certain others at any time of the year, why are 
not the owners of private collections liable to 
arrest? 
“I learn that collectors for scientific pur¬ 
poses are much opposed to the law. Who is 
going to mount their specimens for them, as 
most collectors are unable to do so themselves? 
If the law continues in force, there will be little 
chance for a young man to learn to be a taxi¬ 
dermist, as the specimens that he may work on 
will be too few in number. 
“I believe the State ought to license all taxi¬ 
dermists, giving them the right to mount speci¬ 
mens for collections and scientific purposes, and 
so that we could work on prohibited birds to a 
certain extent. They might limit the number of 
birds that we may mount during a season, our 
books being always open for official inspection. 
At all events, the existing laws should be 
amended or modified so that reputable taxi¬ 
dermists may be properly protected in pur¬ 
suance of their trade.” 
Benjamin F. Feiner, counsel of the Feather Im¬ 
porters’ Association, of New York, expressed 
himself in no uncertain terms against the legal¬ 
ity of the recent seizure in Rochester of fancy 
feathers, including wings, quills and plumage, 
that were on sale in the dry goods stores of that 
city. Said Mr. Feiner: 
“I have been informed by Commissioner 
Whipple that the seizures and arrests made in 
Rochester were wholly unauthorized by his de¬ 
partment. He stated that he had directed that 
the merchandise seized be at once returned and 
that no further action would be taken. He 
thought that, inasmuch as the persons handling 
this character of merchandise were representa¬ 
tive merchants, they were entitled to every fair 
consideration, and if there was any doubt as to 
the construction of any law a test case should 
be made with the least possible disturbance to 
their business. 
"Former Attorney-General Cuneen rendered 
an opinion in writing in November, 1903, stat¬ 
ing that there was no law prohibiting the traffic 
in imported aigrettes. This opinion applied 
equally to all imported feathers. There has been 
no law or decision since this opinion was ren¬ 
dered, changing the situation. I have there¬ 
fore advised my clients that their business is 
perfectly lawful, and I will be prepared to take 
the necessary action against any person or 
society of persons who make any attempt sim¬ 
ilar to the outrage perpetrated in Rochester, to 
prohibit any unlawful interference with the busi¬ 
ness of my clients, and to punish any offenders. 
“Commissioner Whipple relies upon the pro¬ 
visions of Sections 33, 39 and 141 of the Forest, 
Fish and Game law of his State; also upon the 
act of Congress commonly referred to as the 
Lacey Act, and upon the decision of the Court of 
Appeals in what is usually known as the Silz 
case. None of-the sections sustains his posi¬ 
tion, nor do the other authorities cited. 
“So far as I can see, the Legislature does not 
intend to—and never-will—interfere with the sale 
of foreign plumage. Such a law could only be 
enacted for the purpose of protecting and pre¬ 
serving our local birds of this State, and if 
there are no birds within the State yielding 
plumage of the character which is imported, 
such as paradise, aigrette, ostrich and numer¬ 
ous other varieties, it would be senseless for the 
Legislature to put any, such laws upon the 
statute books. 
“The trouble seems to have been caused by 
the agitation carried on by the*various branches 
of the Audubon. Society—whose object (a laud¬ 
able one in itself) is the protection of our wild 
birds. The Society, however, seems to have 
lost sight of the fact that by far the greater pro¬ 
portion of feathers used for millinery purposes 
to-day are obtained from domestic fowls and 
